British referendum brought to Europe a crisis with unclear consequences

Leaders of the European Union countries and officials of the European Commission were completely unprepared for the UK (Brexit) to leave the European community. As the days following the event showed, the results of the referendum for most politicians were a complete surprise. As a result, there was a lot of haste, nervousness and obvious confusion in their actions.

British referendum brought to Europe a crisis with unclear consequences

Merkel starts and does not win ...

The first reaction of the EU leaders has shown that in the new situation they are most afraid of uncertainty. Shortly after the referendum results were published in London, a joint statement by the head of the EU Council, Donald Tusk, President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz, President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker and Prime Minister of the Netherlands Mark Rutte appeared on the Council of Europe website.

There, in particular, it was said: “We expect that the government of the United Kingdom will begin to implement the decision of the British people as soon as possible, no matter how painful this process may be. Any delay will only unnecessarily prolong uncertainty. ”

Such a statement without holding mutual consultations with old partners and clarifying positions seemed rather strange. The desire of European officials to quickly begin the procedure for leaving the UK from the European Union cannot be explained by irritation with the unexpected outcome of the referendum. It rather showed a determination to uphold the interests of the countries of the Union. Because London was so sharply asked "with things to the exit."

In more detail this position was reflected by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. On Tuesday, speaking in the Bundestag, she promised not to let the UK "skim the cream" in future negotiations with the European Union. “There should be and there will be a noticeable difference between whether a country wants to be a member of the family of the European Union or not,” the largest European news agencies quoted Merkel’s words.

In other words, the UK will not be able to retain the privileges of membership in the European Union after waiving its obligations to it. Stating this, Angela Merkel explained that the British would not gain access to the single market unless they maintain freedom of migration.

This is probably the most painful question for Brexit. After the referendum, of course, the risks of financial and multinational companies have increased. They will touch ordinary people not immediately and not directly. But the threat of losing work and the right to residency in the UK has already hung over three million Europeans in search of a better share of those who have moved to the British Isles.

Among them one third are citizens of Poland. On the eve of the referendum, the Polish Sociological Institute IBRiS conducted a study and concluded that after the Brexit 47,% of the Poles living in Britain will want to stay there. The calculation is based on the fact that after five years of living on the islands, it is possible to extend work visas, obtain other preferences.

The rest are awaited by the road home, or, as one Polish diplomat said, to which the authors of the study refer: “People will try to get citizenship of other countries”. In both cases, new perspectives are far from obvious. This is understood by 26% of those polled by IBRiS, who will return home after searching for Britain from the EU.

Around the same situation are migrant workers from the Baltic states, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria. Brexit, for example, touched 200 000 Lithuanians. From the pages of the Politico edition, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Antanas Linkiavicius invited them back home. “Frankly speaking,” Linkyavichyus admits in an interview, “we had 3,5 million inhabitants in the country, and now there are three million left ... I can't say that they are waiting for jobs, but the diaspora appeared there recently, and therefore there is not much difference.”

The difference, however, is. She is obvious. Merkel understands this and therefore is trying to take over the protection of labor migrants in Britain, and at the same time strengthen the authority of Germany as the leader of the European Union.

Not everyone likes it. US Secretary of State John Kerry, after talking with his British counterpart Philip Hammond, expressed hope for the US participation in the negotiations on British withdrawal from the EU. Kerry said that London and Washington are still "strong and non-daring NATO allies, permanent members of the UN Security Council, trading partners and close friends." A replica of the chief of American diplomacy should besiege Merkel's desire to saddle Brexit.

Americans are contributing to the Brexit agenda

In the meantime, there are signs that the United States Department of State is attempting to reverse Brexit. As Interfax reported on Tuesday, at the Festival of Ideas in Aspen resort in response to a question from the audience about whether the UK can “turn back” on the issue of implementing the results of the referendum, John Kerry replied: “As US Secretary of State, I don’t want them (the British ) exited the EU. That would be a mistake. There are various ways ... ".

The new topic was picked up by the British media. The Independent columnist for the London daily, Sean O'Grady, draws attention to the fact that many Brexit supporters now doubt their choice. O'Grady admits: “I voted for the withdrawal, but, taking into account all the arguments, one cannot deny that in the end we will remain in the EU”.

This conclusion of the journalist is based on the fact that, in his opinion, the percentage of those who voted for Brexit does not allow to make a categorical conclusion about the desire of the people of Britain to leave the EU. Now the final decision (“whether to follow the will of the people or not”) should be passed by the parliament.

To this, O'Grady adds: “Few of the conservatives - the majority party forming the government - now support the exit from the EU, including London’s ex-mayor Boris Johnson, who previously positioned himself as an active supporter of Brexit.” Similar publications were noted by the magazine The New Yorker, the tabloid The Sun, the conservative The Times and other Western publications.

“If Cameron initiated the 50 article on Friday morning,” wrote The New Yorker, for example, “Great Britain would already be on its way out of the EU: the separation process is irreversible.” But thanks to a clever maneuver - and this was exactly a smart maneuver - the country has some time to reflect on the consequences of Brexit, which are already more serious than many of those who voted for leaving the European Union expected. ”

It’s not only Prime Cameron who’s been thinking. One of the leaders of the company for Brexit ex-mayor of London, Boris Johnson, now urges not to rush to exit procedures from the European Union. In his opinion, now there is no need for haste. In the short term, for the population, nothing will change, and politicians have to figure out how to get out of this "unnatural structure."

To these “smart maneuvers” it is worth adding a very practical threat to the first minister of Scotland, Nikola Sturgeon. Citing the fact that 62% of Scottish voters voted against breaking off relations with Brussels, Sturgeon called on the Scottish Parliament to veto the decision to withdraw Britain from the European Union.

Finally, it is worth remembering about the high-profile re-referendum initiatives, accompanied by public protests. According to some reports, more than three million Britons have already supported this idea. What will happen next?

Uncertainty with Brexit is added every day. This makes European officials nervous. Indeed, in their memory there were already referendums that were never realized. The Financial Times recalls in this connection that “in 1992, the Danes voted against the Maastricht Treaty (which marked the beginning of the EU), the Irish in 2001, voted against the Nice Treaty (which amended Maastricht), and in 2008 - against Lisbon (it replaced the force of the EU Constitution). ”

These three events share one final. The European Union made concessions to both the Danes and the Irish. The new vote restored consensus in the EU. Today, many politicians do not rule out repeating this stories.

However, Brexit has already spawned a crisis in Europe and exerted its influence on the nature of relations between countries. As the Berlin newspaper Die Welt admits, the UK has already started to lose weight in the European Union. Following the referendum, British European Commissioner Jonathan Hill, who is responsible for finance, resigned. European leaders on Wednesday left behind their summit, Prime Minister David Cameron. A day earlier, in the European Parliament, the head of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, gave obstruction to the British deputies.

The Brexit crisis is growing. Experts find it difficult to predict what consequences it can lead to. But, which is already obvious, the British referendum put a fat cross on the former relations in the European Union. Therefore, the European officials became nervous, insisting on the beginning of the procedure for leaving the UK from the EU.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    30 2016 June
    Brost to cry. In Europe, everything is fine, confidently rod in 4 Reich. The USA will feed, as always, and direct in the right direction.
    1. +7
      30 2016 June
      They say that as a result of Brexit, 1 GB of space has been freed up in the European Union.
      1. +3
        30 2016 June
        Well, yes, and a bunch of grass the size of one dill is trying to replace this volume, but to no avail. For some reason they don’t take it.
        1. +1
          30 2016 June
          The European Union is a CIA project, as evidenced by the recently declassified CIA documents on this issue. From the documents follows
          In the 1950's, the purpose of the American operation - and the documents prove that the Americans carried out this set of measures just like a covert operation - was to control a diverse set of states from across the ocean (even dwarfs could defend their national interests), and create a single managing center in Europe and flood it with its agents of influence.
          See - //
          It is unlikely that the Americans abandoned this idea, contrary to the assurances of Merkel and Hollande that they supposedly insist now that Britain’s exit from the EU end as soon as possible before the domino effect is activated.
          As for Britain’s exit from the EU, the hidden true motives of the UK that pushed it to this are very well commented by Nikolai Starikov.

          Nikolai Starikov on Britain's exit from the European Union. Published: 24 Jun. 2016
          Do not miss see with 11 min.
          1. 0
            30 2016 June
            With Britain's exit from the EU and Cameron's resignation, things are not so simple. In politics, nothing is unexpected - especially in the English monarchy! It's like a suitcase with a "double" bottom. Let's try to find the "second bottom" - what may be hidden in politics for a somewhat MORE distant FINAL perspective in the spirit of the results of the US HYBRID war against Russia!
            Firstly, the EU is a US project to manage continental Europe. The English bank is part of the US Federal Reserve. It cannot be that the United States so unexpectedly released Britain from the EU. Moreover, as some recent publications in the media report, on the one hand, the very presence of England in the EU created EU credibility in the eyes of other non-EU countries. (Now almost all European countries have entered the EU.) And secondly, contrary to popular belief, England supposedly still more “fed” from the EU countries than contributed to the EU. Therefore, in theory, it is beneficial for England and the United States that Britain remains in the EU. To get such a result when voting in a referendum, they could very well use falsification of the voting results - all the more so since the difference could be eliminated only in 1,9%. But they didn’t. Why? Let's try to find the answer.
            Imagine that the USA is really preparing for the 3-th MV from the Russian Federation.
            The English Bank is the head bank of the US Federal Reserve (the Rothschilds, merged together with the English monarchy). What does the global elite need to do strategically? It is necessary to withdraw England from the Russian retaliatory strike in the 3-th MV with Russia. In other words, England should not immediately be included in the TMV, but should be at the beginning of the war only as an outside observer of the events. This will allow: 1) to keep it intact, clean and tidy, 2) to observe the progress of the war in Europe and 3 painlessly) at the end of TMB to enter as a “liberator” with the corresponding preferences for the winner in 3 world war. Everything, as in WWI and WWII.
            How to do it now? Strategically, the UK needs:
            1. relieve oneself of obligations in the EU - withdraw Britain from the EU;
            2. to break free of NATO commitments - to withdraw from NATO;
            3. to conclude fictitious "allied" defense treaties separately with NATO countries without their ratification, as Great Britain did before WWII, counting on its final geopolitical victory on the principle "Winners are not judged! The winner is always right!" (And the UK may well find a loophole from its ratified "allied" treaties to refuse them or simply not fulfill them.)
            1. 0
              30 2016 June
              If it seems to someone that Britain, leaving the EU and NATO, will remain unprotected, then this is not so. Namely.
              If Britain also leaves NATO, leaving the EU, it will conclude separately with each European country an "allied" defense treaty. Such a treaty will be drawn up with the proviso that England will comply with her obligations to her ally only if he himself does not start the war first. If an ally starts a war, England will remain neutral. That's the trick!
              If, for example, NATO countries (and they are actually being prepared for an aggressive war against Russia) attack Russia, then Britain's withdrawal from NATO, as well as such an "allied" defense treaty with each individual NATO country, allows Great Britain to maintain its neutrality in the 3rd MV (TMV). And then, by the end of the war, she is free to join the war herself on any side she sees fit.
              Moreover, such neutrality will allow the UK during the TMV to sell weapons to all warring parties.
              Further. In this situation, the main thing for the British is that someone from the NATO countries begin a war in Europe.
              Therefore, the Anglo-Saxons will do everything to start a war in Europe.
              As for the attack on England, then according to this "allied" defensive treaty, all countries will have to defend England if anyone attacks her. And here only one question is important: to what extent is the UK banking system connected to the US Federal Reserve in order to continue to have its influence on the EU through Washington? For it is the US Federal Reserve that controls Washington - i.e. The US State Department, the CIA, the Pentagon, which runs NATO.
              Besides. The entire EU will not break up. Rather, according to the joint plan of the USA and Great Britain, this, apparently, is not provided for. And already on 27 on June 2016, at a meeting in Prague, German Foreign Minister Steinmeier and his French colleague Eiro presented to the Foreign Ministers of the Visegrad Four countries (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia) an 9-page document in cat. we are talking about a plan to create a "European superstate", cat. however, it is perceived by the cautious Poles - despite the good assurances of Berlin - as the creation of the “4 Reich.” However, London promises Poland with its plans to recreate the Commonwealth “from mozh to mozh” (from the Baltic Sea with access to the Black Sea) to continue to support her.
              How all this reminds provocative preparation of Great Britain and the USA for WWII!
              From the side of the Anglo-Saxons it will be pure water the exact same geopolitical “setup” that it was for Hitlerite Germany and its allies in WWII.

              I myself made this forecast for TMV on the basis of historical data on how Great Britain and the USA prepared WWI and WWII, how they participated in them. This information about WWI and WWII can be found in the following books:
              1. Starikov Nikolay. Geopolitics. How is this done .- SPb .: Peter, 2016. -368 with
              2. Starikov Nikolay. 1917. The answer to the “Russian” revolution. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2015. -416 with
              3. Starikov Nikolay. Who made Hitler attack Stalin. Hitler's fatal mistake .-- St. Petersburg: Peter, 2015. -368 sec
              4. Starikov Nikolay. Who is financing the collapse of Russia? From the Decembrists to the Mujahideen. - SPb .: Peter, 2016. - 288 sec.
      2. PN
        30 2016 June
        Yes, they will not exit anywhere, they will trynd and will remain in the EU. Big Top is all.
        1. +1
          30 2016 June
          In both the EU and Britain, all serious politicians (including those who voted against the exit) speak of the inevitability of an exit.
  2. +3
    30 2016 June
    Quote: Mavrikiy
    Brost to cry. In Europe, everything is fine, confidently rod in 4 Reich. The USA will feed, as always, and direct in the right direction.

    Who is crying? Russia is simply watching closely the bickering in the West and waiting for the "corpse" of its enemy to float by.
    1. 0
      30 2016 June
      Quote: mamont5
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      Brost to cry. In Europe, everything is fine, confidently rod in 4 Reich. The USA will feed, as always, and direct in the right direction.

      Who is crying? Russia is simply watching closely the bickering in the West and waiting for the "corpse" of its enemy to float by.

      “If you sit on the bank of the river for a very long time, your main enemy will be a hemorrhoidal lump.” I mean, “what is good for a Russian, then death for a German,” but also vice versa. Seriously though:
      1. Who on the planet is the main chief? Correctly.
      2. Glavnyukov has problems of corresponding sizes.
      3. For their economy to work, they need markets with controlled prices, taxes, fees, that is, governments. It’s a problem with every Lilliput country, you see their national interests. Therefore, Europe needed to unite and give control of the United States. Therefore, the first step is to create the EU. The EU was not created by Europeans, oh, how smart they are. The EU was created by the United States to takeover and destroy a competitor industry and create a market for its goods through TAPok.
      4. This is not England left, it brought her. If they voted to stay, the papers were falsified and would still be withdrawn. England's brain, it needs to be protected and nourished through the City. And why are there migrants, problems of the euro, etc.
      5. The Germans and the French prepared a documentary and .... There are no nation states, no borders, armies, sovereignty, there is truly a United Europe. Not the Union, but Europe with a capital letter.
      But with proprietors, cosmopolitans, what to do. And then the TAPok will be signed and goods from the USA will pour in, the production of Europe will be shut down, and in 5-10 years the USA will spin up its military-industrial complex and it will not seem enough to everyone. The Europeans will be rearmed and the 4th Reich will again "Draunk nach Osten". Because the batteries will go down again, and also deal with China ...
  3. +6
    30 2016 June
    their actions became a lot of haste, nervousness and obvious confusion.

    And how else can Brussels officials fattened at the expense of others? For so many years, skating like cheese in oil and sitting out your pants, and here you need to make serious decisions for which they are not only not ready, but also who are not used to working, cannot tear the fifth point from their seats. Recent days have clearly shown unprofessionalism, bureaucracy and moldy EU officials.
  4. +1
    30 2016 June
    The crisis in the relations between their vassals was organized by the USA in order to weaken the position of local elites. The Transatlantic Trade Agreement is stalling; instability in the camp of the main EU players is important to the Americans. In troubled waters it is easier to fish.
  5. +1
    30 2016 June
    Now let's see how the Europeans will get out. It’s not only us to solve problems, though we are somewhat familiar with them.
  6. +1
    30 2016 June
    Let's just say the wrong people are now at the helm of the EU.
    Now there are people who are good for peacetime,
    when everything is quiet and calm. And now, time requires tough decisions and tough people.
    Accordingly, such people will require power and opportunity,
    which the current EU structure cannot give.
    And most importantly, you need quick solutions,
    that in the current European bureaucracy is impossible in principle.
  7. +5
    30 2016 June
    “Everything was mixed in the house of Oblonsky. The wife found out that the husband was in connection with the French governess who was in their house, and announced to her husband that she could not live with him in the same house ... The wife did not leave her rooms, her husband was not at home for the third day. Children ran around the house like lost; the Englishwoman quarreled with the housekeeper and wrote a note to her friend, asking her to find a new place; the cook left the yard yesterday, during dinner; the black cook and the coachman asked for a calculation "...
  8. 0
    30 2016 June
    This is the beginning of the end of the EU and there is no need to invent anything.
  9. HAM
    30 2016 June
    "Mom Choli" and her subjects. They are tricky, they will not be smart!
  10. 0
    30 2016 June
    in one there are united among themselves .. everything against us can be so briefly noticed
  11. 0
    30 2016 June
    Sounds like a tantrum. They would have declared war on Britain.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"